Ahhh Keith …(sigh) …we don’t seem to be reaching 100% agreement here.

I envy your father his peaceful dignified exit. I envy you your faith in the efficiency and efficacy that our medical system and your certainty that it will ensure an equally swift smooth closure for you and I.

Fingers crossed that neither of us finds out one way or the other for at least another 100 years! I’m working on it!!

However, lacking similar confidence, knowing first hand how horribly wrong things can go, I’m too scared to rely on the present style of collective decision making by carers and medicos about how, when (and how slowly) to deliver euthanasia. I much prefer to make my own “collective’ decisions, all by my little self.

Sadly, under the present legal system, that means I will have to check out well before I’m really ready, just to ensure that I act before I am no longer capable of acting alone and unaided.

My life will be longer if I know that when I am ready I can obtain the assistance I need, which is why I am hoping for some legislative changes.

I promise not to try to make it compulsory for everyone; and I promise not to hand out “the good stuff” to teenagers on street corners. I promise to support your decision to see it through yourself right to the very end, no matter what.

I just wish I had the same freedom of decision making with regard to my own life.

But hey, I must leave now as there are matters of more immediate importance than life and death - like Xmas shopping and parties and xmas cards to write and even the odd bit of sleep.

With any luck, we can still be arguing about these things at the turn of the next century.

In the meantime, Merry Xmas to you and all the other nice people who have been contributing to this chat,
Cheers
Carrie-

Keith
You stated:

“I believe there is a choice at those times”

The choice for the terminally ill, as you are constantly pointing out, is ‘ hang in there, suffer, die slowly at a pace’
as I (Keith) suggest, because I (Keith) and your father did so. In other words, it is your choice only that you offer the terminally ill. To put it kindly, this is not a choice, this is Keith's Rules.
To put it straight, this is dictatorship, disguised as a caring and concerned citizen.
Well, unfortunately this sounds all too familiar.
Imposing your experience ,thinking and will upon those who feel and think differently is, what I call, intolerant, patronizing, bullying and unacceptable.
Indeed, you fall into the category of people, who seems to be a priori against voluntary euthanasia. No matter what .
Your comment:

“ I'd consider legal euthanasia if a guarantee could be given on containing any movement of that point of compassion. That won't happen”

suggest, that you have already made up your mind (that won’t happen, ergo it shouldn’t happen. Really, this is not very helpful for those who want a serious discourse and an honest debate on the issue of voluntary euthanasia. Your comments are self centered,
absolute righteous, and far from being constructive.
Keith, why are you hiding behind the so-called majority, who, according to you, don’t care? 80% of Australians support voluntary euthanasia. Do you consider them all a
“left minority” ? By the way, where do you get your statistics from?
After reading your last comment:

“ I believe the status quo should be the option offered to the terminally ill”.

I came to the conclusion , it is really you, Keith, who doesn’t care , not the majority of people.

Tommy

Tommy

What a lovely bullying attitude. If you think the majotity of Australians support Voluntary Euthanasia, well mobilise them and get the existing laws changed. Many have tried and all so far failled.

If you want to argue the morallity of the issue, do so but sinking to the level you have isn't debate it's merely a low form of propaganda. It simply reveals you haven't morality on side.

Can you guarantee the point where VE is invoked won't change? Let's see you start by debating that simple point in a serious and honest manner.

Hi Carrie,

well said and summed up. There is more to life than try to convince someone
(Keith) who has already made up his mind. No matter what.
It is nearly impossible to break through a wall of ignorance.

I’ve read your comments with interest and agree totally with you.
Thanks to all who are making the effort to fight for the
re-instatement of the Rights for the terminally ill.
Indeed, a cause worthwhile to fight for as Angelika pointed it
out so rightly.

I fully support the views of Angelika Minner. Why do christian religious leaders, the Right to life groups and polititians believe they have a mandate to dictate to others who might belong to another religious group or may not even believe in any sort of god.
The real problem is not with religions but it is with the practioners of religion. In the name of religion, countless millions of people have been murdered throughout the centuries because they were or were not christians. the first crusade was launched by Pope Uban at the council of Clermont in 1095 where he urged christians to clean Muslims out of Jeruselem. There was at least another 10 crusades over almost 200 years and countless men, women and children were murdered in the name of Christianity.
In recent times, the attack on Iraq was engineered by George Bush ( without United Nations agreement ) because he believed that being a christian, he must be right. As a result of attacking Iraq, 600,000 ordinary Iraq people died and over 4,000 American soldiers have been killed.
Also other recent events include the millions of dollars paid out by the Catholic church in America for sexual assaults by their priests and problems have also appeared in Australia.
I would have expected that religious leaders would have cleaned up their own backyard to get more credibility before trying to believe they had the right to consider themselves to be the arbiter of moral and ethical standards.
What right do politicians have to impose their personal beliefs on the rest of the population when in the case of the Howard government they did not have a mandate to push the Prime ministers beliefs and in particular upon the Northern Territory. The conscience vote is meaningless as I believe that most of them find it more convenient to vote as the Prime Minister does.
Democracy has suffered in Australia as a result of religious intolerance and arrogance.
Bobbd

Hey guys'ngals - Steven, Bobbd, turnrightthenleft, Ellis, Billie, Evolution, Dnicholson, Wizofaus, Bullagal, Thebigkoala - kindred spirits all:

probably we've all had some personal experiences that have shocked us into realising that our own demise could quite possibly be extremely unpleasant and protracted. We've seen it happen and don't subscribe to the "it won't happen to me" theory.

most people don't contemplate their own death with any particularity. becuase of the dubious benefit of our experiences (in my case) or innate intelligence that prompts a careful "thinking through" of the possibilities (some other people), we do think about it in some detail and don't fancy taking our chances. we would like to see something in place to help us if we need it.

Let's do as Keith suggests and keep working at improving our own chances by whatever reasonable means we can find, especially trying to get some "kindness" laws so the doctors and institutional carers don't have to kill us by inches (as they do now under currently entrenched "unofficial" euthanasia practices).

I'm selfish, I'd like to circumvent death altogether, but failing that I want a good happy ending for myself. And I'm caring enough to wish the same for you.

Cheers and all the best,
Carrie